[gui-talk] Amazon being improved? (was Re: The Federation, inconsistency and accessibility Evangelism.)
Joel Deutsch
jdeutsch at dslextreme.com
Sat Mar 15 20:23:35 CDT 2008
Hi Mike,
Nice post. Cogent and articulate, and a pleasure to read. That said, I have
no dog in this fight, but I'm listening to the exchange with interest.
Meantime, if the NFB is actually bringing its pressure to bear on Amazon
itself, has anything new been accomplished in the way of making Amazon more
navigable and responsive to screen reader users? Yes, sure I know about the
stripped-down version of the Amazon site that was designed to fit more
comfortably onto tiny screens, and I'm not a fan of that alternative for a
number of practical reasons. So I'm talking about the "real" Amazon Web
site.
For a long time now, certain commonly used categories of Amazon pages, like
the product page that loads when you click on an item's listing after a
search, became like mud or quicksand to arrow through or navigate with other
commands, and those who know what I mean know what I mean. This isn't an
idiosyncratic problem that just has to do with my own computer or Jaws 9 as
opposed to Jaws 8. Something's gotten mucky about these Amazon pages, and
I've never heard any encouraging news about it being on the way to being
ameliorated.
AnywaAnyone know what's up with this, and if the NFB is actively pressing
for a solution to this along with any other Amazon site problems their
committee may identify?
Thanks.
alterantive,interestee mall Please, anyone about to tleaccomplsiuhed pressur
brining
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] The Federation,inconsistency and accessibility
Evangelism.
Darrell:
I don't know why I'm even writing this as you refuse to acknowledge that
there are other opinions than yours respecting whether there are
inconsistencies in NFB's positions regarding accessibility of
technology, e.g., the Target lawsuit, "accessible" currency and
described video. You state that there are inconsistencies, failing to
acknowledge that this is your *opinion* rather than a fact. I, for one,
believe that our accesssibility policies are *not* inconsistent. But
that's because I define the issues somewhat differently than do you and
because those who disagree with us persist, as Dave Andrews says, in
refusing to acknowledge the possibility that our positions are mor
nuanced or complex than the simplistically-stated stands those who
disagree with us persist in imputing to us.
Everyone pleads for understanding and civility. But this works both
ways. It seems to me that if we acknowledge that our positions are
different from others and take those others at their word as to their
positions, it is equally incumbent upon those others to listen to us and
to acknowledge that we have a right to state our positions and that we
also have the right to have our positions interpreted as we promulgate
them. Put succinctly, acknowledge what we say, not what you say we say.
Mike Freeman
----- Original Message -----
From: Darrell Shandrow
To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 4:37 PM
Subject: [gui-talk] The Federation,inconsistency and accessibility
Evangelism.
David,
Though others in the blind community do not like my position on this,
I am
still in principle support of NFB's lawsuit against Target. All the
same, I
also feel NFB should clarify to the public the reasons it is
continuing the
suit despite the changes Target has made. Some of us are a bit
confused
that Target is now powered by Amazon, Amazon and NFB have entered into
some
sort of agreement, yet there have been no public explanations of how
all
this news impacts the Target lawsuit. I feel the blind community and
the
public at large are owed an explanation. :-)
I know I am most certainly *not* alone in my views regarding NFB's
inconsistent approach to accessibility evangelism. There are many
others in
the blind community who express similar misgivings. Does NFB do some
great
things for accessibility once in awhile? Absolutely, yes! Is it
enough or
is it consistently applied, certainly not.
It is inconsistent to sue America Online and Target for
inaccessibility
while working against accessible currency and mandated descriptive
video.
There are actually many entry level jobs a blind person can't
currently do
because of inaccessible currency. Without one of those entry level
jobs as
a teenager, it is much more difficult for a blind person to learn what
it
takes and get her foot in the door later for a higher level job. Why
wouldn't the Federation want to support accessible currency for this
reason
alone? BTW, there is not now and won't be anytime in the near future
a
K-NFB Reader or other money identification technology that will make
money
identification as efficient for a blind person as it could be if the
Federal
government made it accessible.
It is fine for you to attempt to make this a matter of my personal
priorities and essentially say that the Federation has its reasons for
an
inconsistent accessibility policy, but, what I feel is really needed
is a
full explanation to the blind community and the public in general by
NFB
national leadership as to the background and reasons for filing
lawsuits
against some companies while letting others off the hook.
I was a member of the Federation for several years. I understand and,
even,
agree with much of the movement's philosophy. Unfortunately, NFB's
apparently over-minimalistic approach to access issues is not in the
best
interests of the nation's blind population, or that in the rest of the
world
for that matter. I submit that a much stronger stance on access
issues
would ultimately be more in line with Federation philosophies of
independence and self-sufficiency than is the current patchwork lack
of a
consistent accessibility evangelism action plan on the part of the
current
leadership.
OK. There we go. I've also adjusted the subject to better reflect
the
content of the current discussion.
Regards,
Darrell Shandrow
Accessibility Evangelist
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Andrews" <dandrews at visi.com>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Captchakiller.com
Darrell, what you are calling inconsistency is to some extent
different priorities then yours. You are painting very black and
white positions, like we are against descriptive video or marked
currency. Our positions are actually more nuanced then that, not a
yes or no position.
, making accommodations necessary. This can not be underestimated.
Because we don't do everything you would want, or in the way you
would want, it doesn't necessarily make us wrong or inconsistent.
Dave
Politically though it is in your interest to portray us
differently. You yourself admit that there were problems with the
Target site. Do we drop it because they fixed some of them.
We filed the suit because it is one we can and will win and will have
a dramatic effect on web accessibility. This suit will make it clear
that web sites are places of public commercial 10:13 PM 3/10/2008, you
wrote:
>Hello Mike,
>
>You've just got to admit that the Federation is inherently
inconsistent on
>its accessibility advocacy. NFB sued AOL while assisting the
broadcast
>industry to get out of FCC rules that would have provided four hours
of DVS
>on network television. NFB is suing Target despite the fact the site
has
>since become more accessible over the years, while it sides with
Treasury
>against accessible currency. I haven't seen NFB do a thing to help
with
>CAPTCHA access other than write a couple of articles and make some
>telephone
>calls. My intent is actually not to necessarily beat the Federation
over
>the head as much as it is to simply call them as I see them with
respect to
>accessibility evangelism.
>
>If the sighted have access, then I as a blind person should be
"reasonably"
>accomodated. That probably means somewhere between ignored and
completely
>excluded and having my access given to me on a silver platter. I
shouldn't
>be barred from accessing a site simply due to the fact I am unable to
>verify
>my human status due to a physical lack of eye sight. Similarly, I
>shouldn't
>lose my job over inaccessible software simply due to a circumstance
totally
>beyond my control and a lack of willingness to reasonably accomodate
the
>situation.
>
>We must not allow anyone to kick us to the curb and toss us in the
trash
>can
>like yesterday's newspaper. Instead, we ought to try and get on the
same
>page and make our voices heard frequently and loudly when necessary
across
>the organizational lines on access concerns.
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
>To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 8:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Captchakiller.com
>
>
>Steve:
>
>You are absolutely right. As you say, NFB *is* worried about the
CAPTCHA
>issue. And we do urge sites to install an audio equivalent upon
ocasion.
>However, we hold no illusions that this is a long-term solution to
the
>problem.
>
>Where Darrell and I may differ is in our views as to what "equal
access
>with the sighted" means and to what extent this is a civil right on
par
>with, say, the right to peaceably assemble to petition the government
>for redress of grievances, etc. AS I've seen you argue elsewhere,
once
>we start down the philosophical road of arguing that because the
sighted
>can easily do something or have automatic access to something, we,
the
>blind, should *also* have such access, if necessary at societal
expense,
>there's only one ultimate solution -- for us all to gain our sight. I
>think we can all readily admit that few of us will have that
>opportunity. Therefore, in treading that philosophical path, we are
>ultimately painting ourselves into a corner.
>
>Certainly, if society says by law that we, the blind, have the right
to
>a certain type of access, it goes without saying that said law should
be
>enforced. But to what extent we have the right to access in
cyberspace
>hasn't been fully determined yet and even then, it hasn't been
>determined whether such access should be required down to the lowest
>common denominator, i.e., everything text, or whether some savvy on
the
>part of screen-readers and/or the blind users can be expected.
>
>I agree with Darrell that it makes little sense to design sites that
are
>inaccessible when accessibility is easily acommodated if done at the
>design stage. But that's *our* thinking, that is, the thinking of a
>small minority in the world. For the majority, it doesn't really
matter
>and in trying to craft solutions to the problems, we should at least
>acknowledge this -- that and the fact that innovation and
technological
>change cannot and probably should not be stopped so that we will
always
>be behind the curve in access. Does this mean we shouldn't try to
make
>things more accessible? Of course not. But, at least to my way of
>thinking, it means that we must temper our idealism with a dose of
>reality.
>
>Aside from convenience, what drives Darrell and all other access
>advocates (including NFB) is the knowledge that certain aspects of
>electronic life are slowly being taken away from us due to changes in
>style and manner of operation of devices from computers to washers.
And
>we must craft a response that has some chance of working. Determining
>what that response should be is no easy task and it is, in part, why
we
>have a R&D Committee.
>
>But I would hope that Darrell would get off his horse of thinking NFB
>"doesn't care" because staff has sighted help (as do most firms,
groups
>or other endeavors). I assure him and everyone else that I lived
alone
>for many years and I think he will acknowledge that my views have
>remained relatively unchanged in this area since we've argued
>good-naturedly over it for lo many years.
>
>Steve was right: I was reacting to the one remark; I see such
thinking
>as ham-stringing us in the long run.
>
>Mike Freeman
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steve Jacobson
> To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 12:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Captchakiller.com
>
>
> Darrell,
>
> Just to be sure it is clear, nobody in the NFB has said, to my
>knowledge, that we should not deal with CAPTCHA's, and I know there
are
>some efforts to affect
> change. I really don't think there is serious disagreement here
so I
>don't understand the feeling that there is an argument.
>
> We have a whole range of problems with security schemes as you
already
>know, and it is not clear how the law applies. The existence of the
>captchakiller web site
> indicates more than anything to me that the life of captcha's is
>short, but there will probably then be something else. We must
become
>part of the equasion when
> security schemes are developed more than we are now. I really
don't
>think there is disagreement on this topic, though.
>
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:54:45 -0700, Darrell Shandrow wrote:
>
> >Hi Sherri,
>
> >Karen and I certainly understand your issue. Sometimes, it seems
to
>me that
> >different blind people deal with accessibility concerns at
differing
>levels
> >of priority according to the number and qualification of the
sighted
>people
> >around them and their willingness to be available to meet their
needs
>at a
> >moment's notice.
>
> >I've visited the NFB national center a couple of times in the
past,
>and I
> >can certainly understand why the Federation might be inconsistent
and
>rather
> >spastic in the ways they do or don't prioritize equal access.
There
>are
> >plenty of sighted people who have been hired to meet the needs of
Dr.
>Maurer
> >and the rest of the citizens working in those buildings. I
figure
>that,
> >once one has had a bunch of sighted people at their beck and call
for
> >awhile, one probably tends to forget what it is like for the rest
of
>the
> >blind population out here living in the real world. Same is true
for
>those
> >blind people who tend to lean heavily on sighted colleagues,
friends
>and
> >family members to fill their access needs.
>
>
>
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Sherri" <flmom2006 at gmail.com>
> >To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
> >Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 10:41 AM
> >Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Captchakiller.com
>
>
> >You know, I make these somewhat tongue-in-cheek comments and it
>starts a
> >long controversial thread. What I was referring too is in my
case,
>and my
> >case only, if I have to depend on someone in my family to read
>anything to
> >me, it is an arduous and frustrating task. For example, I needed
to
>fill out
> >a form. I have people around who can do that. They have plenty of
>time on
> >their hands. No one would help and my financial planner finally
just
>came
> >over and got the form from me and we filled it out. It took all
of
>five
> >minutes. If I had the funds, I would hire a sighted reader, a
driver,
>etc.,
> >but I don't so it isn't an option for me, so I am glad for the
>software I
> >have that does allow me to read my mail. And that's my two cents
>worth.
>
> >Sherri
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Joel Deutsch" <jdeutsch at dslextreme.com>
> >To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
> >Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 12:34 PM
> >Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Captchakiller.com
>
>
> >Hi Raul,
>
> >First of all, let me say that I don't have a dog in this fight,
as
>the
> >expression goes. If someone feels comfortable using a sighted
reader
>in an
> >instance like this, fine with me. If they don't begrudge this
>approach to
> >someone else, but feel strongly that it's not only more efficient
but
>more
> >dignified to be able to overcome the CAPTCHA obstacle all by
>themselves,
> >either by pressuring for audio links or finding a way to break
the
>system,
> >also fine by me.
>
> >But I think the folks who are objecting to the "sighted reader"
>approach (I
> >think of this role more as " that of a sighted accomplice, for
some
>reason)
> >must feel that the goal of independence means not having to ask
>another
> >person for assistance if at all possible. that's why it matters
so
>much to
> >them, seems like a capitulation and, possibly, even a
humiliation.
>
> >as someone who's in the process of going blind by degrees (I'm
using
>"blind"
> >in the most conventional meaning, here), one of the biggest
>challenges I've
> >faced over the past few years since my vision crossed the line
from
>being
> >too poor to drive or make sense of movies to rendering me unable
to
>perform
> >many more tasks was that of having to learn to ask others for
help.
>And I
> >have found that although I'm happy to have something like Jaws at
my
> >disposal so I don't require a sighted reader for the vast
majority of
>my
> >usual reading needs,in other situations, such as shopping for
>groceries at
> >my local food markets, I've not only given in to asking to have
>someone
> >assigned to me to go around and pluck items off the shelves and
put
>them
> >into the shopping basket, I more often than not feel enriched by
the
> >interaction,. It took some time to accept feeling like this
instead
>of the
> >shame and irrational resentment I felt at first-- I mean
resentment
>against
> >those who were helping me-- and get over the undeniable loss of
>anonymity
> >(which is really prized by most people when they have to run
their
>errands;
> >you drive alone to some store, wrestle a shopping cart out of the
>parked
> >stack, wheel it around the store raving things and tossing them
into
>the
> >cart, and check out at the cashier line, and maybe that cashier
is
>the only
> >person you acknowledge with at least a "how ya doing today" and a
>smile
> >before taking your bags and tossing them into your car. You
haven't
>been
> >forced to interact with anyone else unless you really wanted to
>discuss the
> >French wines with the man who was standing beside you at that
display
>or
> >flirt with the woman whose eyes met yours over the watermelons).
Some
> >sighted people these days manage to even get past the cashier
without
>a real
> >affirmation that it's a fellow human being they're dealing with,
but
>rather
> >talk on their cell phones while they watch the total come up on
the
>cash
> >register and whip out money to pay with, exchanging nothing but a
>glance
> >with the cashier that says "here's the dough, now let's have my
>change."
> >This is the kind of privacy and anonymity in a public situation
that
>most
> >people in the U.S., at least, prize as a social birthright. And
>disability
> >robs you of that, as well as rendering something like grocery
>shopping
> >massively inefficient and time-consuming compared to before, if
>you're
> >experiencing what I've been experiencing over recent years. for
me,
>that's
> >still a bummer. but not the part about learning to reach out and
ask
>for
> >assistance and then interrelate a little with the person who
helps
>me.
> >That's all been an enrichment, despite my regrets. It took me a
long
>time to
> >get to feeling this, though, I admit. Just saying this stuff in
case
>anyone
> >else might be heartened to hear it.
>
> >And the same with voting. Let's be realistic. I don't go to vote
in a
> >precinct where my vote is likely to arouse hostility on a
helper's
>part,
> >whether or not someone else might even care about that. I live in
an
>area
> >that's basically politically friendly for someone of my political
>bent.
> >whether or not everyone agrees on this state proposition or that
>candidate
> >for office. If I lived in a more threatening locale, I might wish
>more
> >fervently to have private voting access, but that's not my
situation.
>
> >And I'll also confess that the way I deal with the occasional
CAPTCHA
>that
> >flummoxes me is to email a close friend, give him the user ID and
>pass I'm
> >using on that site, and have him log in for me so I can do
whatever
>it was I
> >was trying to do. I don't feel diminished by that. But I'm also
happy
>that
> >people campaign to get Web masters to reform on this issue by
adding
>audio.
> >Both, not just this or that, black and white.
>
> >Just a personal observation. I know that others may feel
differently,
>and
> >I'm not trying to argue or rally anyone to my side. I just felt
>inspired to
> >share my own experience of something like this in all its meaning
>beyond
> >some political correctness issue.
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Raul A. Gallegos" <raul at asmodean.net>
> >To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
> >Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:51 AM
> >Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Captchakiller.com
>
>
> >I think it's rather amusing how the informative nature of the
>original
> >post has to degrade as to whether using sighted readers is good,
bad,
> >honorable, silly, or something else not mentioned as yet. Come on
>folks.
> >Whether you use the killer site or not, or whether you always use
> >readers or not, what it comes down to is if you get the job done
in
>any
> >way you can, that is what makes you independent. So, let's not
split
>hairs.
>
> >ryan perdue said the following on 3/10/2008 3:03 AM:
> >> Mike, why would it be an honorable thing?
> >> Sometimes, it's easy to feel like you're getting in someone's
way,
>that
> >> would make it worse.
> >> Accessibility is a right and we need to be able to live
>independently as
> >> much as possible.
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Darrell Shandrow" <darrell.shandrow at gmail.com>
> >> To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
> >> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 2:11 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Captchakiller.com
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hello Mike,
> >>>
> >>> I see you trotting out this "sighted reader" argument quite
often.
> >>> That's
> >>> all fine and good, but...
> >>>
> >>> Why should there be screen readers and other assistive
>technologies for
> >>> the
> >>> blind? Couldn't one just avail themselves of a sighted
reader?
> >>>
> >>> Why should there be accessible voting? Why should the
election
>officials
> >>> have to help us vote? Shouldn't we all be required to bring
our
>trusty
> >>> sighted reader with us?
> >>>
> >>> Why should anyone purchase a K-NFB reader when they can plunk
even
>more
> >>> money down over their lifetime to hire the services of a more
>reliable
> >>> sighted reader?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
> >>> To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
> >>> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 8:21 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Captchakiller.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Now waaaait a minute here.
> >>>
> >>> I agree that the site is progress. But using sighted readers
is an
> >>> honorable thing!
> >>>
> >>> Mike
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: Sherri
> >>> To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
> >>> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 8:06 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Captchakiller.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hey, anything's better than having to wait for a sighted
person!
> >>> Thanks.
> >>> I'll give it a try.
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Steve Pattison" <srp at internode.on.net>
> >>> To: "GUI Talk" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>; "Access-L"
> >>> <access-l at access-l.com>
> >>> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 10:44 PM
> >>> Subject: [gui-talk] Fwd: Captchakiller.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sent: Sunday, 9 March 2008 9:33 AM
> >>>
> >>> Today, I heard about this site on another list, and I love
it.
>If you
> >>> ever
> >>> need to use a site that requires captchas,
> >>> you will to. The url is
> >>>
> >>> www.captchakiller.com
> >>>
> >>> The first thing you will have to do is sign up for an
account.
>On the
> >>> home
> >>> page, they have a lot of forum posts and
> >>> comments, but if you look for the crate an account link, you
>should
> >>> have
> >>> no
> >>> problems at all.
> >>>
> >>> Once you have an account, you can upload those bothersome
>captchas,
> >>> and
> >>> the
> >>> site will process them for you.
> >>>
> >>> I had a little trouble at first, but once you realize what
they
>want,
> >>> it's
> >>> fairly straight forward.
> >>>
> >>> I'll give you the step by step instructions.
> >>> 1. go to the site that has the captcha.
> >>> 2. find the exact page that has the captcha, and copy the url
>that's
> >>> in
> >>> the
> >>> address bar.
> >>> 3. find the captcha on the page, and right click on it.
> >>> 4. choose the save picture as option and save it to your
hard
>drive.
> >>> 5. on the captchakiller site, choose the upload captcha
link.
> >>> 6. paste the page url into the url field.
> >>> 7. hit the browse button on the page, and browse to the file
you
>saved
> >>> on
> >>> your computer.
> >>> 8. after hitting open on the file, hit the submit button on
the
>page.
> >>> 9. then choose the view captchas link on the page, and find
the
>most
> >>> recently uploaded one. It should be the one at
> >>> the top.
> >>> 10 when you go through the table you'll result, and beside
that
>is
> >>> what
> >>> you
> >>> have to type in for the captcha.
> >>>
> >>> This may sound a little complex, but it isn't so bad once you
get
>used
> >>> to
> >>> doing it. I'm not saying it's a solution to
> >>> all our captcha problems, but it sure beats getting sighted
help
>every
> >>> time
> >>> you need a captcha interpreted.
> >>>
> >>> Another helpful hint I can give you, is to keep the
captchakiller
> >>> site,
> >>> and
> >>> the site you want the captcha for, opened at
> >>> the same time. That way, you can get the captcha processed
>quickly
> >>> and
> >>> enter it on the site before it expires.
> >>>
> >>> Hopefully, some people will find this site useful.
> >>> --------
> >>> Earle
> >>> Skype, Twitter, and Yahoo: rowdyamerican
> >>> MSN: peterson_33 at sympatico.ca
> >>> Aim: rowdyamerican28
> >>> ICQ: 155852055
> >>>
> >>> Regards Steve
> >>> Email: srp at internode.on.net
> >>> Windows Live Messenger: internetuser383 at hotmail.com
> >>> Skype: steve1963
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> gui-talk mailing list
> >>> gui-talk at nfbnet.org
> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> gui-talk mailing list
> >>> gui-talk at nfbnet.org
> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> gui-talk mailing list
> >>> gui-talk at nfbnet.org
> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> gui-talk mailing list
> >>> gui-talk at nfbnet.org
> >>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> gui-talk mailing list
> >> gui-talk at nfbnet.org
> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>
>
> >--
> >Raul A. Gallegos -- http://www.asmodean.net
> >_______________________________________________
> >gui-talk mailing list
> >gui-talk at nfbnet.org
> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >gui-talk mailing list
> >gui-talk at nfbnet.org
> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >gui-talk mailing list
> >gui-talk at nfbnet.org
> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >gui-talk mailing list
> >gui-talk at nfbnet.org
> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gui-talk mailing list
> gui-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>gui-talk mailing list
>gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>
>_______________________________________________
>gui-talk mailing list
>gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG.
>Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1324 - Release Date:
>3/10/2008 7:27 PM
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
More information about the gui-talk
mailing list